Romney: No Medicare for me, thank you

posted at 3:40 pm on March 12, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Mitt Romney is 65 years old today — and, so, eligible for Medicare. The multimillionaire has no need of it, though, and says he thinks he’ll keep his private insurance plan, thank you very much. CNN Political Ticker reports:

Should Romney become the nominee, the disclosure that the former Massachusetts governor will opt against using Medicare could become a campaign issue. Romney has proposed drastic changes to the government insurance program for senior citizens.

Last month, Romney unveiled a Medicare reform package that included raising the program’s eligibility age and offering seniors the option to enroll in a private insurance plan. The changes would take effect for new retirees in 2022.

What else could he do? If he chose to enroll, his enrollment would underscore an absurdity of the program: Under Medicare right now, taxpayers pay for the health care of plenty of seniors who could afford to pay for their own. As the tone of Political Ticker’s report hints, though, it could actually become a campaign issue that Romney opted out: Critics will find some way to make that a negative. They’ll cite this as further evidence of his supposed inability to understand the average American’s financial reality or they’ll say it underscores that he has the luxury of proposing to reform Medicare without worrying about how it will affect current enrollees. Never mind that no politician really has that luxury. High voter turnout among seniors ensures their demands will always be met first!

Smartly, though, Romney has seized his birthday as an opportunity to highlight his Medicare reform proposals once more — and to call out the president for a lack of leadership on this issue. The president’s unwillingness to touch the program will — whether inadvertently or intentionally — “end Medicare as we know it,” Romney’s spokeswoman said today.

“If President Obama’s plan is to end Medicare as we know it, he should say so,” Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said. “If he has another plan, he should have the courage to put it forward. Until he explains his position and answers the following questions, he and his spokespeople are irrelevant to the national debate.” …

The Romney campaign said Obama has not proposed big enough changes to save Medicare from insolvency. The program’s fund for hospital care will run out of money in the next 10 years, according to recent projections from the Congressional Budget Office.

While arguing that Obama has not done enough to cut Medicare spending, Romney also criticized the president for Medicare cuts in the healthcare reform law. His statement slams the law for cutting $500 billion in payments to private insurance companies and for establishing an independent board to reduce payments to doctors and some other providers.

Romney’s campaign said the panel would “ration care for today’s seniors.” The House will likely vote soon to repeal the cost-cutting panel, known as the Independent Payment Advisory Board. …

Romney has called for partially privatizing the Medicare program. His plan — similar to the one introduced by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) — would let seniors choose between the existing, single-payer Medicare system or a subsidy to help them buy private insurance.

Republicans’ ability to win on this issue depends on their ability to get the facts out. A quick refresher:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

So Romney would be behind means testing for Medicare. Love to see the dems try to make ORmney keeping his private insurance an issue. Romneys first response should be “Why should the federal taxpayers pay for millionaires to have medicare?”.

If he chose to enroll, his enrollment would underscore an absurdity of the program: Under Medicare right now, taxpayers pay for the health care of plenty of seniors who could afford to pay for their own. As the tone of Political Ticker’s report hints, though, it could actually become a campaign issue that Romney opted out: Critics will find some way to make that a negative.

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. I have no problem with someone making lots of money, honestly. And if he’s wealthy enough to not need Medicare, and so doesn’t use it, all the better.

Critics will find some way to make that a negative. They’ll cite this as further evidence of his supposed inability to understand the average American’s financial reality or they’ll say it underscores that he has the luxury of proposing to reform Medicare without worrying about how it will affect current enrollees.

Over to the “real” conservatives who now happily trade in Obama’s class envy distractions.

Good that his campaign got out front on this before some presstitute tried a “gotcha” question about it.

This should help his campaign, not hurt it. The more we can highlight how Democrats claim to be for “the 99%” while supporting government-paid halth care for the 1%, the better. We are massively subsidizing affluent old people in this country while the middle class struggles to pay $4 a gallon for gas.

BTW, as I’m writing this, a Newt ad is playing on the radio.
The same ad I’ve heard several times already.
In AZ.
It’s not a national ad; it’s tailored for AZ.
Why advertize in AZ, Newt? We voted for Mitt already.

When we turned 65, I tried to turn it back and opt only for major medical/catastrophic insurance, but was told that no private insurer could, by law, sell it to us. This article is bogus. He’s probably covered through his former company.

What else could he do? If he chose to enroll, his enrollment would underscore an absurdity of the program

Tina, you’d have to be a bit naive to believe that anyone with his amount of major coin would want to go on Medicare. I’m trying to picture Mitt going over Plans A, B, C, D, etc, Medigaps and such to see if he can get a tooth capped.

I’m pretty sure the kind of doctors Romney sees don’t take Medicare. I’m also pretty sure that for the kind of money Romney is paying, his doctors make house calls (even if Romney is campaigning across the country) and will see him any time Romney needs them. In the everlasting words of F. Scott Fitzgerald, the rich are different from you and me. They have more money.

So when Romney says no to Medicare it’s a bit like me pretending I don’t dine at the soup kitchen on principle, when in fact I don’t dine in the soup kitchen because I can get a better dinner at home.

If he chose to enroll, his enrollment would underscore an absurdity of the program: Under Medicare right now, taxpayers pay for the health care of plenty of seniors who could afford to pay for their own.

On the other hand, those seniors who could afford to pay for their own have since 1993 paid 2.9% (combined employer/employee) of their entire salary into the Hospital Insurance portion of Medicare.

First he refuses to say outrageous things about the President and now he refuses to allow taxpayers the privilege of paying for his health care. These indignities will not stand, I tell you. They will not stand!

This should help his campaign, not hurt it. The more we can highlight how Democrats claim to be for “the 99%” while supporting government-paid halth care for the 1%, the better. We are massively subsidizing affluent old people in this country while the middle class struggles to pay $4 a gallon for gas.

rockmom on March 12, 2012 at 3:48 PM

If Romney’s the nominee, I really hope that it will help in, and in a rational world it would. But this is not a rational world. The spin will be that Romney doesn’t care if he destroys Medicare because neither he nor his children will ever need it. (I can just see the commercial now, with a Rommey look-alike pushing grandma off the cliff.)

Critics will find some way to make that a negative. They’ll cite this as further evidence of his supposed inability to understand the average American’s financial reality or they’ll say it underscores that he has the luxury of proposing to reform Medicare without worrying about how it will affect current enrollees.

You mean like how you threw this in- The multimillionaire has no need of it, though…. Because we didn’t know he was rich before and all.

He doesn’t need it, so he’s not using it. What’s the story, here? The fact it might become a campaign issue is a sad commentary on the state of affairs today.

BTW, as I’m writing this, a Newt ad is playing on the radio.
The same ad I’ve heard several times already.
In AZ.
It’s not a national ad; it’s tailored for AZ.
Why advertize in AZ, Newt? We voted for Mitt already.
itsnotaboutme on March 12, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Oops. Somebody forgot to change the creative. Just one more example of Newt’s lack of managerial skills.

My husband and I would also choose not to sign up for Medicare when we turn 65 if we could. But we cannot because not only would we lose our social security, we would also lose our Tricare (military) health insurance.

Medicare is crappy insurance. I’ve done billing for it as well as meicaid. They both suck. It was meant to be for those with no other insurance. Now, as pointed out above, insurance companies are dumping their older employees into it to save bucks.

My husband and I would also choose not to sign up for Medicare when we turn 65 if we could. But we cannot because not only would we lose our social security, we would also lose our Tricare (military) health insurance.

My husband and I would also choose not to sign up for Medicare when we turn 65 if we could. But we cannot because not only would we lose our social security, we would also lose our Tricare (military) health insurance.

Thank you, Mitt, for bringing means testing of Medicare into discussion. It’s about time. Taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for Mitt’s health insurance or Warren Buffett’s. Somebody set an asset limit (how about $10,000,000) and let’s use it as a baby step toward Medicare reform.

I like Jindal a lot, but I’d rather see him at HHS first, not because I don’t think he’d be a kick-*ss VP and then President, but because we NEED him at HHS. I can’t think of anyone else who could do what needs to be done there.

Anybody got a[n official] link to the “if you refuse medicare you don’t get social security”?

You have to sign up for Medicare and it would be an absurd result to not get social security which you also have to tell the SSA that you’re now retired and want your SS benefits. Now premiums for Medicare can get taken out of SS payments, but I don’t see how or why not having Medicare would mean you can’t have Social Security hence my asking for an official link.

I did see on a Medicare FAQ that folks with Tricare and Part A needed to also have Part B of Medicare or they would lose Tricare.

This evening while we were on our way to a local restaurant for my birthday dinner, I mentioned that Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney shares my birthday (not that I’m a fan), and then I got into a discussion about the other candidates with our college age daughter.

I guess our 4 year old son (who has Down syndrome and is mostly nonverbal) must have been listening very intently, because he yelled out, “Ron Paul!”

Throughout my career I have paid into a trust to cover my retirement health coverage–it’s up to $90 a month now. But I STILL have to do medicare when I turn 65 regardless, in that my insurer will bill medicare for the things they cover on care I get and the insurer will take care of the rest.